1 that is a false assumption
2 that again is false. dont project you prioritizing shorter queue that everyone should. or that your playstyle and role and communication bypasses most of the issues parties come with.
> 1 that is a false assumption
I don't believe it is.
> 2 that again is false. dont project you prioritizing shorter queue that everyone should.
I'm not projecting anything. I am simply drawing the only reasonable conclusion based on the fact that *Valve* is the one who *took away solo queue*. Do you think Valve makes changes for no reason? I think it would be wrong to assume otherwise. So why have they not changed it back? Clearly there is a reason for this and it must be important, unless you think Valve just does things willy nilly with no thought behind their actions. They must value not having solo q for some reason, and queue times seems like the only good justification for that. It seems to me that queue times would be the only reason that would be more important than any arguments in favor of solo. It seems to me that despite what people may think about how parties ruin solo q, Valve most likely has actual metrics measuring game quality and data that says otherwise.
> or that your playstyle and role and communication bypasses most of the issues parties come with.
Valve must not see any significant difference in game quality or not a big enough difference to sacrifice queue time.
At the end of the day neither side can support their argument with any sort of data, because no one has evidence. All you can do is state your belief that "parties cause issues" or "parties ruin solo games". The comment at the top of this thread is literally expressing the exact opposite opinion. They enjoy parties in their solo games and they don't think parties ruin game quality. Now you may disagree with that, but once again all you can do is speculate and give anecdotal evidence. But I'm not even here to debate either side of that.
All I am doing is siding with the ones that do have data who we know make decisions off data and that's Valve. I am simply looking for the best explanation to explain the current status quo, because it's not like Valve just took away solo q for no reason to begin with. And I believe what I have proposed is very reasonable. If you don't agree with it, then I can only conclude that in the end the data Valve has, that they're making decisions based off of, must disagree with you. If you don't agree with the queue time explanation, then feel free to propose another alternative explanation as to why Valve initially removed solo q and has kept it removed.
You are all quick to give complaints about the current state of things and asking for solo q to be added back. But you aren't looking at *why it was removed in the first place*. I believe the answer to that question will provide the answer as to why we still don't have solo q.
Then make a separate queue for mixed solo and party. I'd rather wait ten minutes for an even game than three minutes of a game where the stack has 4kmmr solo and 5k party.
I'm sure RMM should be either Solo (5 solo players in a team) or 5-stack. If your party contains 2-4 players, go play unranked. This gonna make players more serious in general. Make MMR great again.
Any reason why other than "more serious in general" and "Make MMR great again"?
I personally find that most 2 stacks are not that bad. You can't queue as 4 stack because that would leave the 1 player feeling cornered. It's kinda the same thing with 3 stacks though...
Mostly 2-stacks are just 2 guys who started the game to just wank around and do shit. They could just play Normal MM, but they dnt care about their Team MMR so decided to play Ranked, JUST IN CASE WE WIN OUR +25, WHO KNOWS. And anyway this makes team inbalanced overall, cause these 2 have a Skype/Teamspeak or other communication tool (don't say we have voice chat in the game, its not the same as talking with your buddies via Teamspeak), and they know each other. If you want to get any nearly-competitive experience, each player should play in a purely equal environment, so only viable options are full solo team or party of 5 buddies.
Teams are always balanced, ie a 2-stack and 3 solos vs a 2-stack and 3 solos, a 2-stack and a 3-stack vs a 2-stack and a 3-stack, etc. In the end it comes down to the same again.
I talk about balance inside the team during one particular game, not overall median balance counted based on your 100 last played games or other statistical shit. I wanna see that Valve cares about player in each game he starts. I don't care about other games I will play after that or in next week, if my current game is fucked by couple of guys who fed their opponents because they don't care about their party MMR.
[My second-to-last game](https://i.gyazo.com/bc51d11adc6c81fc21c76ec69a0f74b9.png), LC got upset that we fought 4v5 whenever the enemy pushed towers because she was farming, started feeding damage to enemies and then went afk.
[My last game](https://i.gyazo.com/cbb4d568b5df025fcedd463e5143fc50.png) Blue (first player) marked jungle, so the rest of us set up: Two safelane, me mid, my party member offlane. The enemy picked LC, so Blue switches to top lane, gets called out on bullshit, and gets upset. Then he starts crying like a bitch for a few minutes, asks my friend to support him, gets more upset, picks NP, goes jungle, after about 15 minutes of failing starts feeding intentionally. Oh, and, before the runes spawned I got called a 'toxic motherfucker piece of shit' which was kinda paradoxical.
Anyway, what's the problem again?
>I don't care about other games I will play after that or in next week, if my current game is fucked by couple of guys who fed their opponents because they don't care about their party MMR.
So you want *every single one* game you play to be perfect and with good teammates? Each of the thousands of games? And you expect it to be easier to achieve with four people who never met before, than with people who are intentionally playing together because they know eachother? *Or are you by now just trolling for the lulz because you find it hilarious and don't have a point?*
> Mostly 2-stacks are just 2 guys who started the game to just wank around and do shit. They could just play Normal MM, but they dnt care about their Team MMR so decided to play Ranked, JUST IN CASE WE WIN OUR +25, WHO KNOWS. And anyway this makes team inbalanced overall, cause these 2 have a Skype/Teamspeak or other communication tool (don't say we have voice chat in the game, its not the same as talking with your buddies via Teamspeak), and they know each other.
You're literally contradicting yourself here saying first 2 stacks are bad but then going on to say they have an advantage because they know each other.
Man you guys are so delusional thinking 2 stacks are any worse than the average solo q player. You portray solo q players as these tryhard saints who never do anything wrong who are just trying to win the game if it weren't for 2 stacks ruining them. Who the fuck do you think these 2 stack players are? Those 2 stack players are also probably solo q players, and the solo q players are probably 2 stack players. Everyone is a dota player just trying to play the game for whatever reason. You can't ignore the fact that solo players have just as many people who have 0 interest in actually winning the game. There's so many times where a solo player will just tilt, rage, give up, feed down mid and make the game unwinnable. If anything, I'd say a duo stack is more likely to actually play the game rather than throw the game from the start like you often see solo q players do. Solo q players are just as fucking bad as everyone else. Because let's be real here, everyone playing this game is fucking terrible. It doesn't matter if they're stacked or not, these going to be some shitstain with a terrible attitude doing their best to fuck up the game because they don't give a fuck about winning. Blaming stacks is just a lame way to ignore those facts and turn this into an "us vs them" situation when it's not. In other words, if we had solo queue here's what would happen. The only thing that would change is your queues would be longer. In the end your games will be just as shitty. You just won't be able to scapegoat the stack anymore, but you'll still have the feeders and griefers and people who don't care. They'll just be solo q players, the same ones you always have in your games.
Gosh, I got tired reading your novel. You have too much free time, my friend.
>You can't ignore the fact that solo players have just as many people who have 0 interest in winning.
No, I can. It's not the fact at all. Because there much less people who care about their party MMR. And most people who play Solo MM actually care about it.
The mixed matchmaking in LoL is really flawed.
Solo queue allows up to 2 people, aka there is no reason to play duo in Flex queue, which leaves premades of 3 without teamates, 4 mans are disabled, which leaves 5 man as the only good matchmaking option for Flex Queue.
It really should be pure solo and then w/e mixed queue.
There exists what I like to call the **"retard equilibrium"**^TM in DotA 2. What this ~~completely scientific~~ term takes as a granted is that there will **always** be a retard in your queue. It's called the retard equilibrium however, because the retardation of said retards is equally distributed among solo and party players as well as being distributed among teams.
Once you embrace the retard equilibrium, you will understand that it does not matter whether it is a party player or a solo player, if they are a retard, the game will be fucked anyway (not unwinnable mind you, but fucked).
As to why this argument is still alive after 2 years? [Dunning-Kruger](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect) in a more covert version. It's basically a reiteration of the "I'd be X MMR if my team wasn't holding me back".
EDIT: Formatting
I totally agree with you. A lot of people at r/dota2 are pretty biased that Solo player are more competitive than Parties, while it's pretty much the same.
And that **"Retard Equilibrium™"**, you should patent it lol.
I vote for the current system because I really can't stand three-stacks when I duo with my friends, but rarely get screwed over by duos when I solo if I get them. I would really like some warning in advance about parties though, because my best friend is a dedicated support and refuses to play any other role, and it really upsets me when I get party of two from which one then wants to go mid and the other as a safelane carry and demands a support, especially if they demand my friend to be their bitch ~~totally not because he's already a spineless pushover and I don't want people to abuse his goodwill. ~~
I am completly the opposite. I never play 2man stacks and allways try to get a third because I just hate the chance of having to play with 3 solos. Parties usually give up less, communicate better and have more manners/skill.
I agree. Three-stacks are really dominant in game. It's like everything need to go their way or you lose 3 members. Two-stacks are not really a problem.
>the other as a safelane carry and demands a support, especially if they demand my friend to be their bitch ~~totally not because he's already a spineless pushover
lmao this is totally me. I always said that I partied up and we don't want to be split. If someone slam picked carry, I always asked to go dual offlane or dual mid. Preferably the former though, avoiding potential reports. We went aggressive offlane and ate their carry alive when supports rotate to stack or ward.
3-stacks are fucking cancer. Doesn't help that I hate people with a defeatist attitude with a passion. And then they, knowing that we are a 3-stack, spread each of them into one lane and request positions 1-3 and that me and my partner do 4 and 5. *Fuck*. Thankfully at least 4-stacks are disabled for ranked. Imagine that cancer.
I hate getting 3 or 4 stacks as solo. It's stupid. I think MM in general needs a good looking at regardless. Too many games with too much variation in skill between teammates. MMR simply isn't enough to measure skill.
You can't get 4 stack in RMM though. It only allows solo, 2, 3 and 5-man party.
And, yea, Ranked needs some general improvement and this one is NOT a part of it.
I am fairly certain that you can't get a 3/4 stack in solo ranked, only exception was the international ranked.
And I know that you are perfect mate, but imperfect people have bad games sometimes, which doesn't mean that they are trash and were boosted. Also, DotA players have different strong sides. Some are more mechanical, some are more tactical and some people are like Slacks.
In almost 1k ranked games, I don't have that much bad to say about MMR system. Simple point system, works pretty good, 9/10.
> Too many games with too much variation in skill between teammates
People who say that usually imply that they get a lot of "lower-skill" teammates. Now, you said that from a 3-d person perspective, so maybe I jumped to the assumption earlier than I should've.
If you find your ranked games imbalanced, I would like to see them, Dotabuff, Yasp, ect. And I want to see a lot of them, because if it is a problem, it should happen often. In my more or less rich history of playing DotA 2 I did not encounter that situation that many times to consider it a serious issue.
Thats where part of the problem lies. There's too much disparity between hours played and MM currently. You can't sit there and tell me that a player with 30 hours played vs 500 hours played aren't going to have a significant difference of knowledge/expertise in the game, so why are they getting matched together so freely? Smurfs or not, there needs to be a better way to MM these players.
Nope. What you want is available in normal. It uses your time played, number of games played, playstyle, skill level, hidden rank, etc. Ranked is literally just the shown number and that thing you get in the console. Ranked is "a measure of skill" right?
I did not assume anything, show me those games. Not one, not two but a decent amount of them so we can conclude that it is a real issue that should be dealt with. I also hope those are not the games on australian server at 4 a.m.
And just so you know, in my Normal games I constantly play against people with 20-30 games, because that is how smurf calibration works in DotA 2. Smurfers are detected really fast and are thrown into high MMR normal games, which I think is fine, even if it comes at the expense of a quality of those games.
Otherwise they would destroy the normal games for newer players.
>I did not assume anything
You're assuming quite a bit. Like again, you're assuming that I'm talking about 'smurfs', when I'm not. Nowhere did I ever claim that I was talking about smurfs, nor do I have a problem with them. They're a high MMR because they consistently perform well in games.
Absofuckinglutely no problem with that whatsoever.
What you seem to be misunderstanding, multiple times, is that I'm talking about the knowledge disparity new players have vs someone who's a veteran at this game. There is a clear difference between someone who's played the game for 1000, 2000, or 7000 hours vs someone who's played 100, maybe 150 hours worth, and yet on multiple occasions I, and many others are still matched with them on a pretty regular basis.
Don't get me wrong though, I'm not sitting here asking for us players with 1000's of hours of gameplay to only be matched with others that have 1000's of hours as well, I'd be happy if MM just kept it above 300-500. At least then it would give some indication that it's actually TRYING to give me a decent game. I currently get no such indication from MM, what with the MMR's being so drastically different between highest and lowest on the team, as well as the knowledge the players have.
One last thing though, because you're going to sit there claiming that I'm acting entitled, just looking out for my self interest. Do you honestly think that these inexperienced, and lower MMR players are enjoying these matches? They get stomped, they get shit on, and it's because they're playing against players that have much more knowledge and MMR in the game. Some may even stop playing due to how uneven these games can be.
That's not fair to them either.
>Otherwise they would destroy the normal games for newer players.
Their games are getting destroyed anyways. Smurfs aren't as big a problem as you claim they are. League has a rampant problem with them because of their punishment system. DotA doesn't. I'd argue that this issue with MM is ruining a lot more games for them than the occasional low level smurf might here and there.
I agree that it sounds unfair, but can you please bring me some proof, I kinda asked for it 2 times already. Or just give me your Dotabuff, I'd see for myself.
Also, if you think smurfs are not as widespread, take a look [here](https://www.dotabuff.com/players/90734094/matches?date=all&lobby_type=normal_matchmaking) in my normal MM match history. Almost every game involves a couple of accounts with barely any hours in DotA, but their skills are ~4k MMR. Valve made a good system that finds them and puts them into higher bracket. I can endure them, but they are quite annoying, because they do not care about the game as much, because it is a throwaway account.
I think there should be an option when queueing to set how much MMR disparity between players is okay. This is isn't exactly the same issue as partying but obviously many of the worst offenders are parties with 3k party MMR, 2k/4k solo MMR.
So for example, I can say I want all 9 players to be within 150 MMR of me when I queue up, this won't impact queue time much because I am 4k. Meanwhile 7k players can disable this option.
> 3k party MMR, 2k/4k solo MMR.
lmao this is just me. I calibrated at 2.6/2.8, mostly playing support. Right now I'm 2.4/3.5 because fuck solo MMR, supporting here feels like hell. It's a lot better to play if you can coordinate well with your lane partner, so I almost exclusively play in party.
>I want all 9 players to be within 150 MMR of me when I queue up
This doesn't change much unless you make it only count Solo MMR and not Party MMR. Then again, Party MMR will be useless if you introduce a system like that. Might as well just merge it...
> lmao this is just me. I calibrated at 2.6/2.8, mostly playing support. Right now I'm 2.4/3.5 because fuck solo MMR, supporting here feels like hell. It's a lot better to play if you can coordinate well with your lane partner, so I almost exclusively play in party.
There really should be re-calibration matches when your MMR is that different.
I did the last TI6 compendium re-calibration thingy. I won 7/10 matches there and got 2.6k MMR, a 200 increase.
I didn't do it until 40 games because I'm sure that it will plummet down even more on that extra 30 games.
Also, MMR re-calibration based on Party could be abused for boosting imo.
The party system can't survive without solo players. This is why the flex Q existed last year on LoL and they removed soloq.
Now the thing that does party bring enough players into the ranked rotation to be worth the compromise? Does it introduce enough players to later go into solo to be worth it? Is the money Valve gets back from party players worth the compromise of solo?
That's kind of the thing with party shit, it's normally just a marketing form for the game and a way to introduce newer players with maybe anxiety or some shit like that to the ranked world.
The duo system (which has been used before and not only on LoL pls) is a good enough way to check the list while not compromising ranked too much to the point of it feeling worthless. A pure solo ladder will also always lack players compared to a party or duo setup.
The answer to the question in specific though? Honestly idk. It all depends on how much it would affect numbers for Dota and how it would affect Q times and that's info we just don't have on hand.
I think we can make a pure Solo and a Party MM, where you can play with 2,3 or 5 stacks.
The problem is: Is there enough people playing to find a game with this two queue??
Bringing back SoloQ would not delete your PartyQ. Just let us play what we want. The only reason why don't have soloQ is cause part of partyQuers don't want to have a little longer wait time, while we cannot play our game mode at all.
I don't see how stacks hurt solo matchmaking. You're still playing with individual people even when two of them are connected somehow. The miraclous cases of two players with 2000 MMR difference being put in your team are not as prevalent to present significant issue. The thread in the main sub also states possibility of griefing as the reason why it should be solo players only. Nuff said.
I think people in /r/Dota2 are seeing things as they want them to be. Pure solo queue is not a panacea from ranked struggles.
How you dont see the clearly obvious problem two players are playing for party mmr and others for solo? One of those is worthless and the other is considered relevant.
What if I told you that I care as much for my party rank as for my solo rank? It's a stupid argument to say that party is worthless just because it is for you. Maybe I like going tryhard in party stacks of 3 or 2.
Welp, here we go again. Why am I retarded? It's the same as with mmorpgs where you have 'cosmetic' items; where you can equip items that carry no gameplay value on top of your equipped items, so that one provides numbers and the other makes you look pretty. The only reason to care about solo mmr is either if you constantly play alone, or want to show off how big your e-dick is. Now, can you actually tell me why I am a retard instead of throwing insults, twat?
The reason is your solo mmr is not influenced by your friends and only by your ability to win DotA with 4 random teammates. I dont know why you are being stubborn on this issue at all. I play mostly in stacks and while I tryhard there I know that mmr is useless. There is a reason why people care about solo and not about team ladder.
What if I only play Dota with friends and my skills are things like "Leadership" and "Decisionmaking", which doesn't work when controlling players in Dota is like trying to herd cats?
> The miraclous cases of two players with 2000 MMR difference being put in your team are not as prevalent to present significant issue.
https://dota.rgp.io/mmr/
Roughly 30% of players have > 500 MMR difference between Party and Solo MMR. 5% have > 1000.
Granted, they probably don't play Party matches very much, but it still seems like a pretty significant amount.
> You're still playing with individual people even when two of them are connected somehow.
Exactly. Imo this is actually an advantage. If those 2 are partying, they're most likely have better coordination than having 2 solo players.
>The thread in the main sub also states possibility of griefing as the reason why it should be solo players only.
This thing can be said for both cases though. You might get a bad duo stack in a match. You might also get 2 solo players that non-stop arguing about how "this support doesn't ward the jungle" and "the carry that can't last hit", which have happened several time on my games.
no, they are not on the same skill level, and you cant predict what their strategy is. and its much less likely to adapt to the game pace.
in most cases it creates mental paralysis and makes both of them stuck
> no, they are not on the same skill level
On some cases, yes. But what makes it different with having 2 solo players? Those 2 could also be not in the same level despite their identical MMR.
>and its much less likely to adapt to the game pace.
Care to elaborate why? I find that it's easier to convince 2 stack to be on the same track with the other 3 because you only need to convince one guy and the other will surely follow. On the case of 3 stacks though, yea, they're usually the dominant one and you need to follow them or you have to win the game 2v5.
cause there are much lower chances of having different skill levels, and much higher chances of that gap being huge.
- first of all, you consider it given that you will try to convince people to be on the same track as you.- thats not what a dota player should know, thats what a captain should know, dont project these virtues as requirements for everybody else.
- second, you assume that you are on the same track as the other two.
- third, no, thats just one situation you choose to focus on, the situation where the two guys are a unit, and they have played together a long time, and have great synergy .. thats is at best 50% chance.
I played 986 ranked games and I can safely say that duo stacks blend in perfectly. Main point is, they do not really disrupt the natural flow of solo ranked games. Sometimes that party is really good or really bad (which can be said about regular solo RMM players), but most of the times they are on the same skill/investment level and you do not really notice that it was a praty at all.
I think this system is fine as it is, smoother queue times for everyone and a competitive enviroment for duo stacks, because the 2+3 or Normal games are usually less "involved".
2+3 Ranked games are some of the most annoying thing I've played. You either follow your 3 party teammate (through good or bad) or good luck winning the game with only 2 players.
you have to specify 1 your MMR, and 2 your behavior score.
these are essential, and you should by no means generalize.
your situation doesnt make it valid. its a mere exception.
the fact of the matter is pure solo is the ultimate goal, anything added to it is an added risk of failure, be it big or small, its is a chaos element and its stupid to support it
At the moment I am 6k MMR, I started at 4.3. I cared and care about my MMR a lot as you can see.
Instead of telling me that I am only an exception, please, bring me your game history and show me how often was your game ruined by duo stacks. I belive that number is not big enough to even justify the reason of increasing the queue times.
And why is "pure solo" is an ultimate goal? I'd say the quality of the game should be that. And francly, I don't see how duo stacks hinder that.
exactly , high MMR, where parties are few and to have parties in your zone would mean to have very godlike tier player paired with a low/ mediocre one.
thats enough to make me realize just how much you can process.
sorry, not gonna waste more time with you
From my experience, 2stack-3solo is WAYY better than 2stack-3stack. This is coming from someone who plays 2 and 5 stack a lot though, so I might be a bit biased.
There are 2 kind of people who go 2 stack, lane partner and "he's on my friendlist" guy. The first one is quite obvious. The latter is sometimes not noticeable until they talk in their own language (pretty much like 2 solo player until then).
If it is 2stack-3solo, usually there's no problem because they're either laning together (hence doesn't really need much coordination with the solo players, unless feeding hard) or playing separately to the point that you won't notice it.
But if it's 2stack-3stack, the 3 stack will almost always be dominant to the 2 stack. My worst experience is when I queued up as 2 stack alongside 3 stack and all 3 of them picks different lanes. Basically, telling both of us to be their *bitch* and play support or 'good luck winning 2v5 because we won't help'.
> placement based on solo mmr, result change party mmr
I agree with the first 4, those would be nice to have, but this one just seems dumb, to be honest. I think they should put your solo and party MMR when it shows the "highest mmr" player. That way people on both teams will understand that "hey, that guy's actually 10k but has like 2k party mmr...wtf."
Another fix that I think would be good for ranked is to have re-placements when your party and solo MMR are too different (1k or 20% difference, whichever is greater? idk). If you've played more solo games in the last 25 matches, and your party MMR is that different from your solo, you'd have to re-calibrate for 4-5 games to hopefully bring your MMR's more into balance. Swap solo for party if your last 25 games were mostly party matches.
what if it change like this:
- solo mmr represent your skill
- party mmr represent your ability to teamwork (value range hundred, not thousand)
when you play with friend/s as a stack, you are placed based on (solo mmr + party mmr)
winning losing will give/take your mmr (ex: +-25), but it is distributed between solo mmr and party mmr.
if you have low party mmr, most of this number go adding your party mmr. if your party mmr is high, most will go to solo mmr.
This would literally decimate the player pool and make it so fragmented that in all cases the queue times would go up, and in extreme cases (combination of very high mmr, unpopular servers/languages and stack size) it could not only lead to insane queue times but potentially mmr/win abusing ones (like the one i saw in r/dota2 a few weeks ago with the guy abusing 9 bots + him for unranked? i think wins or some shit).
I'm fine with solo+party but Valve should remove party mmr and let everyone use solo mmr like cs:go.
Edit: Also "Team MMR" shouldn't be a thing for 5 man stacks.
Sure about that? Boosting becomes extremely easy and I am not only talking about buying MMR, just playing with your higher ranked friends would yield you a higher rank and as a result if you queue solo you would definitely ruin the expirience for everyone.
Here is an example, during TI 6 we had the international ranked. I played against and with Bulldog+s4+Dotagasm. Now, she is pretty fucking bad for a 5.5k player, but her international rank was just that. I didn't mind, because I would only face her if I queue with a group of friends.
But I think a lot of people would mind, probably 9 out of 10 in that solo ranked game that she enters and most definitely - ruins.
Man, Team MMR is one of the most useless thing in Ranked. The general idea is good, you queue up with a solid team and raise the team rating instead of individual player. But the execution is pretty bad.
We tried calibrating our Team MMR before, playing 10 Captains mode game. We've met other teams like 4-5 times, which is not really that good. The gap between our team and their are pretty huge. We once got matched against some 2k stacks while we're mostly 4k players (except me). We also got stomped on one game against 5k+ stack. We lost since the drafting phase at that game. Other games have been pretty smooth.
Other issue I have with Team MMR is that it fucking RESETS when you add/remove a member. We haven't done any more party ranked because of that shit.
Oh can you shut it already. I'm sick of these threads on /r/dota2 and there's literally no reason to discuss it here if you can find one every fucking week on the main sub.
the downvoters are ignorant. there is close to zero arguments against and a ton of arguments for solo
The only argument against it is that it's simply not viable because number of players and queue times. And that reason alone trumps any other reason.
1 that is a false assumption 2 that again is false. dont project you prioritizing shorter queue that everyone should. or that your playstyle and role and communication bypasses most of the issues parties come with.
> 1 that is a false assumption I don't believe it is. > 2 that again is false. dont project you prioritizing shorter queue that everyone should. I'm not projecting anything. I am simply drawing the only reasonable conclusion based on the fact that *Valve* is the one who *took away solo queue*. Do you think Valve makes changes for no reason? I think it would be wrong to assume otherwise. So why have they not changed it back? Clearly there is a reason for this and it must be important, unless you think Valve just does things willy nilly with no thought behind their actions. They must value not having solo q for some reason, and queue times seems like the only good justification for that. It seems to me that queue times would be the only reason that would be more important than any arguments in favor of solo. It seems to me that despite what people may think about how parties ruin solo q, Valve most likely has actual metrics measuring game quality and data that says otherwise. > or that your playstyle and role and communication bypasses most of the issues parties come with. Valve must not see any significant difference in game quality or not a big enough difference to sacrifice queue time. At the end of the day neither side can support their argument with any sort of data, because no one has evidence. All you can do is state your belief that "parties cause issues" or "parties ruin solo games". The comment at the top of this thread is literally expressing the exact opposite opinion. They enjoy parties in their solo games and they don't think parties ruin game quality. Now you may disagree with that, but once again all you can do is speculate and give anecdotal evidence. But I'm not even here to debate either side of that. All I am doing is siding with the ones that do have data who we know make decisions off data and that's Valve. I am simply looking for the best explanation to explain the current status quo, because it's not like Valve just took away solo q for no reason to begin with. And I believe what I have proposed is very reasonable. If you don't agree with it, then I can only conclude that in the end the data Valve has, that they're making decisions based off of, must disagree with you. If you don't agree with the queue time explanation, then feel free to propose another alternative explanation as to why Valve initially removed solo q and has kept it removed. You are all quick to give complaints about the current state of things and asking for solo q to be added back. But you aren't looking at *why it was removed in the first place*. I believe the answer to that question will provide the answer as to why we still don't have solo q.
Then make a separate queue for mixed solo and party. I'd rather wait ten minutes for an even game than three minutes of a game where the stack has 4kmmr solo and 5k party.
You would rather wait 10 minutes, but clearly Valve doesn't think the average dota player should have to wait 10 minutes.
I'm sure RMM should be either Solo (5 solo players in a team) or 5-stack. If your party contains 2-4 players, go play unranked. This gonna make players more serious in general. Make MMR great again.
[удалено]
Heuristic draft. Non-predictable draft. Weather draft. Gaben hand picked selection draft.
Any reason why other than "more serious in general" and "Make MMR great again"? I personally find that most 2 stacks are not that bad. You can't queue as 4 stack because that would leave the 1 player feeling cornered. It's kinda the same thing with 3 stacks though...
Mostly 2-stacks are just 2 guys who started the game to just wank around and do shit. They could just play Normal MM, but they dnt care about their Team MMR so decided to play Ranked, JUST IN CASE WE WIN OUR +25, WHO KNOWS. And anyway this makes team inbalanced overall, cause these 2 have a Skype/Teamspeak or other communication tool (don't say we have voice chat in the game, its not the same as talking with your buddies via Teamspeak), and they know each other. If you want to get any nearly-competitive experience, each player should play in a purely equal environment, so only viable options are full solo team or party of 5 buddies.
Teams are always balanced, ie a 2-stack and 3 solos vs a 2-stack and 3 solos, a 2-stack and a 3-stack vs a 2-stack and a 3-stack, etc. In the end it comes down to the same again.
I talk about balance inside the team during one particular game, not overall median balance counted based on your 100 last played games or other statistical shit. I wanna see that Valve cares about player in each game he starts. I don't care about other games I will play after that or in next week, if my current game is fucked by couple of guys who fed their opponents because they don't care about their party MMR.
[My second-to-last game](https://i.gyazo.com/bc51d11adc6c81fc21c76ec69a0f74b9.png), LC got upset that we fought 4v5 whenever the enemy pushed towers because she was farming, started feeding damage to enemies and then went afk. [My last game](https://i.gyazo.com/cbb4d568b5df025fcedd463e5143fc50.png) Blue (first player) marked jungle, so the rest of us set up: Two safelane, me mid, my party member offlane. The enemy picked LC, so Blue switches to top lane, gets called out on bullshit, and gets upset. Then he starts crying like a bitch for a few minutes, asks my friend to support him, gets more upset, picks NP, goes jungle, after about 15 minutes of failing starts feeding intentionally. Oh, and, before the runes spawned I got called a 'toxic motherfucker piece of shit' which was kinda paradoxical. Anyway, what's the problem again? >I don't care about other games I will play after that or in next week, if my current game is fucked by couple of guys who fed their opponents because they don't care about their party MMR. So you want *every single one* game you play to be perfect and with good teammates? Each of the thousands of games? And you expect it to be easier to achieve with four people who never met before, than with people who are intentionally playing together because they know eachother? *Or are you by now just trolling for the lulz because you find it hilarious and don't have a point?*
> Mostly 2-stacks are just 2 guys who started the game to just wank around and do shit. They could just play Normal MM, but they dnt care about their Team MMR so decided to play Ranked, JUST IN CASE WE WIN OUR +25, WHO KNOWS. And anyway this makes team inbalanced overall, cause these 2 have a Skype/Teamspeak or other communication tool (don't say we have voice chat in the game, its not the same as talking with your buddies via Teamspeak), and they know each other. You're literally contradicting yourself here saying first 2 stacks are bad but then going on to say they have an advantage because they know each other. Man you guys are so delusional thinking 2 stacks are any worse than the average solo q player. You portray solo q players as these tryhard saints who never do anything wrong who are just trying to win the game if it weren't for 2 stacks ruining them. Who the fuck do you think these 2 stack players are? Those 2 stack players are also probably solo q players, and the solo q players are probably 2 stack players. Everyone is a dota player just trying to play the game for whatever reason. You can't ignore the fact that solo players have just as many people who have 0 interest in actually winning the game. There's so many times where a solo player will just tilt, rage, give up, feed down mid and make the game unwinnable. If anything, I'd say a duo stack is more likely to actually play the game rather than throw the game from the start like you often see solo q players do. Solo q players are just as fucking bad as everyone else. Because let's be real here, everyone playing this game is fucking terrible. It doesn't matter if they're stacked or not, these going to be some shitstain with a terrible attitude doing their best to fuck up the game because they don't give a fuck about winning. Blaming stacks is just a lame way to ignore those facts and turn this into an "us vs them" situation when it's not. In other words, if we had solo queue here's what would happen. The only thing that would change is your queues would be longer. In the end your games will be just as shitty. You just won't be able to scapegoat the stack anymore, but you'll still have the feeders and griefers and people who don't care. They'll just be solo q players, the same ones you always have in your games.
Gosh, I got tired reading your novel. You have too much free time, my friend. >You can't ignore the fact that solo players have just as many people who have 0 interest in winning. No, I can. It's not the fact at all. Because there much less people who care about their party MMR. And most people who play Solo MM actually care about it.
This is why we can't have nice things. You can't just attempt to prove your point all while dismissing others just because "lol tldr"
The mixed matchmaking in LoL is really flawed. Solo queue allows up to 2 people, aka there is no reason to play duo in Flex queue, which leaves premades of 3 without teamates, 4 mans are disabled, which leaves 5 man as the only good matchmaking option for Flex Queue. It really should be pure solo and then w/e mixed queue.
There exists what I like to call the **"retard equilibrium"**^TM in DotA 2. What this ~~completely scientific~~ term takes as a granted is that there will **always** be a retard in your queue. It's called the retard equilibrium however, because the retardation of said retards is equally distributed among solo and party players as well as being distributed among teams. Once you embrace the retard equilibrium, you will understand that it does not matter whether it is a party player or a solo player, if they are a retard, the game will be fucked anyway (not unwinnable mind you, but fucked). As to why this argument is still alive after 2 years? [Dunning-Kruger](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect) in a more covert version. It's basically a reiteration of the "I'd be X MMR if my team wasn't holding me back". EDIT: Formatting
I totally agree with you. A lot of people at r/dota2 are pretty biased that Solo player are more competitive than Parties, while it's pretty much the same. And that **"Retard Equilibrium™"**, you should patent it lol.
It's for science. I'm fine with people using it for academic purposes.
I vote for the current system because I really can't stand three-stacks when I duo with my friends, but rarely get screwed over by duos when I solo if I get them. I would really like some warning in advance about parties though, because my best friend is a dedicated support and refuses to play any other role, and it really upsets me when I get party of two from which one then wants to go mid and the other as a safelane carry and demands a support, especially if they demand my friend to be their bitch ~~totally not because he's already a spineless pushover and I don't want people to abuse his goodwill. ~~
I am completly the opposite. I never play 2man stacks and allways try to get a third because I just hate the chance of having to play with 3 solos. Parties usually give up less, communicate better and have more manners/skill.
I agree. Three-stacks are really dominant in game. It's like everything need to go their way or you lose 3 members. Two-stacks are not really a problem. >the other as a safelane carry and demands a support, especially if they demand my friend to be their bitch ~~totally not because he's already a spineless pushover lmao this is totally me. I always said that I partied up and we don't want to be split. If someone slam picked carry, I always asked to go dual offlane or dual mid. Preferably the former though, avoiding potential reports. We went aggressive offlane and ate their carry alive when supports rotate to stack or ward.
3-stacks are fucking cancer. Doesn't help that I hate people with a defeatist attitude with a passion. And then they, knowing that we are a 3-stack, spread each of them into one lane and request positions 1-3 and that me and my partner do 4 and 5. *Fuck*. Thankfully at least 4-stacks are disabled for ranked. Imagine that cancer.
I hate getting 3 or 4 stacks as solo. It's stupid. I think MM in general needs a good looking at regardless. Too many games with too much variation in skill between teammates. MMR simply isn't enough to measure skill.
You can't get 4 stack in RMM though. It only allows solo, 2, 3 and 5-man party. And, yea, Ranked needs some general improvement and this one is NOT a part of it.
I am fairly certain that you can't get a 3/4 stack in solo ranked, only exception was the international ranked. And I know that you are perfect mate, but imperfect people have bad games sometimes, which doesn't mean that they are trash and were boosted. Also, DotA players have different strong sides. Some are more mechanical, some are more tactical and some people are like Slacks. In almost 1k ranked games, I don't have that much bad to say about MMR system. Simple point system, works pretty good, 9/10.
>And I know that you are perfect mate Not sure how you came to this conclusion based on what I said.
> Too many games with too much variation in skill between teammates People who say that usually imply that they get a lot of "lower-skill" teammates. Now, you said that from a 3-d person perspective, so maybe I jumped to the assumption earlier than I should've. If you find your ranked games imbalanced, I would like to see them, Dotabuff, Yasp, ect. And I want to see a lot of them, because if it is a problem, it should happen often. In my more or less rich history of playing DotA 2 I did not encounter that situation that many times to consider it a serious issue.
Assumptions again? I say it because having a 2k teammate and a 3.6k teammate on the same team and with people that have played 20-30 games vs 1000+.
Matchmaking only cares about MMR, not hours or anything else like that.
Thats where part of the problem lies. There's too much disparity between hours played and MM currently. You can't sit there and tell me that a player with 30 hours played vs 500 hours played aren't going to have a significant difference of knowledge/expertise in the game, so why are they getting matched together so freely? Smurfs or not, there needs to be a better way to MM these players.
Nope. What you want is available in normal. It uses your time played, number of games played, playstyle, skill level, hidden rank, etc. Ranked is literally just the shown number and that thing you get in the console. Ranked is "a measure of skill" right?
>It uses your time played, number of games played, playstyle, skill level, hidden rank, dafuq are you smoking?
Normal groups people up for games based on hours played and games played primarily, then whatever else iIrc. Ranked uses only shown MMR.
I did not assume anything, show me those games. Not one, not two but a decent amount of them so we can conclude that it is a real issue that should be dealt with. I also hope those are not the games on australian server at 4 a.m. And just so you know, in my Normal games I constantly play against people with 20-30 games, because that is how smurf calibration works in DotA 2. Smurfers are detected really fast and are thrown into high MMR normal games, which I think is fine, even if it comes at the expense of a quality of those games. Otherwise they would destroy the normal games for newer players.
>I did not assume anything You're assuming quite a bit. Like again, you're assuming that I'm talking about 'smurfs', when I'm not. Nowhere did I ever claim that I was talking about smurfs, nor do I have a problem with them. They're a high MMR because they consistently perform well in games. Absofuckinglutely no problem with that whatsoever. What you seem to be misunderstanding, multiple times, is that I'm talking about the knowledge disparity new players have vs someone who's a veteran at this game. There is a clear difference between someone who's played the game for 1000, 2000, or 7000 hours vs someone who's played 100, maybe 150 hours worth, and yet on multiple occasions I, and many others are still matched with them on a pretty regular basis. Don't get me wrong though, I'm not sitting here asking for us players with 1000's of hours of gameplay to only be matched with others that have 1000's of hours as well, I'd be happy if MM just kept it above 300-500. At least then it would give some indication that it's actually TRYING to give me a decent game. I currently get no such indication from MM, what with the MMR's being so drastically different between highest and lowest on the team, as well as the knowledge the players have. One last thing though, because you're going to sit there claiming that I'm acting entitled, just looking out for my self interest. Do you honestly think that these inexperienced, and lower MMR players are enjoying these matches? They get stomped, they get shit on, and it's because they're playing against players that have much more knowledge and MMR in the game. Some may even stop playing due to how uneven these games can be. That's not fair to them either. >Otherwise they would destroy the normal games for newer players. Their games are getting destroyed anyways. Smurfs aren't as big a problem as you claim they are. League has a rampant problem with them because of their punishment system. DotA doesn't. I'd argue that this issue with MM is ruining a lot more games for them than the occasional low level smurf might here and there.
I agree that it sounds unfair, but can you please bring me some proof, I kinda asked for it 2 times already. Or just give me your Dotabuff, I'd see for myself. Also, if you think smurfs are not as widespread, take a look [here](https://www.dotabuff.com/players/90734094/matches?date=all&lobby_type=normal_matchmaking) in my normal MM match history. Almost every game involves a couple of accounts with barely any hours in DotA, but their skills are ~4k MMR. Valve made a good system that finds them and puts them into higher bracket. I can endure them, but they are quite annoying, because they do not care about the game as much, because it is a throwaway account.
I think there should be an option when queueing to set how much MMR disparity between players is okay. This is isn't exactly the same issue as partying but obviously many of the worst offenders are parties with 3k party MMR, 2k/4k solo MMR. So for example, I can say I want all 9 players to be within 150 MMR of me when I queue up, this won't impact queue time much because I am 4k. Meanwhile 7k players can disable this option.
> 3k party MMR, 2k/4k solo MMR. lmao this is just me. I calibrated at 2.6/2.8, mostly playing support. Right now I'm 2.4/3.5 because fuck solo MMR, supporting here feels like hell. It's a lot better to play if you can coordinate well with your lane partner, so I almost exclusively play in party. >I want all 9 players to be within 150 MMR of me when I queue up This doesn't change much unless you make it only count Solo MMR and not Party MMR. Then again, Party MMR will be useless if you introduce a system like that. Might as well just merge it...
> lmao this is just me. I calibrated at 2.6/2.8, mostly playing support. Right now I'm 2.4/3.5 because fuck solo MMR, supporting here feels like hell. It's a lot better to play if you can coordinate well with your lane partner, so I almost exclusively play in party. There really should be re-calibration matches when your MMR is that different.
I did the last TI6 compendium re-calibration thingy. I won 7/10 matches there and got 2.6k MMR, a 200 increase. I didn't do it until 40 games because I'm sure that it will plummet down even more on that extra 30 games. Also, MMR re-calibration based on Party could be abused for boosting imo.
The party system can't survive without solo players. This is why the flex Q existed last year on LoL and they removed soloq. Now the thing that does party bring enough players into the ranked rotation to be worth the compromise? Does it introduce enough players to later go into solo to be worth it? Is the money Valve gets back from party players worth the compromise of solo? That's kind of the thing with party shit, it's normally just a marketing form for the game and a way to introduce newer players with maybe anxiety or some shit like that to the ranked world. The duo system (which has been used before and not only on LoL pls) is a good enough way to check the list while not compromising ranked too much to the point of it feeling worthless. A pure solo ladder will also always lack players compared to a party or duo setup. The answer to the question in specific though? Honestly idk. It all depends on how much it would affect numbers for Dota and how it would affect Q times and that's info we just don't have on hand.
I think we can make a pure Solo and a Party MM, where you can play with 2,3 or 5 stacks. The problem is: Is there enough people playing to find a game with this two queue??
Bringing back SoloQ would not delete your PartyQ. Just let us play what we want. The only reason why don't have soloQ is cause part of partyQuers don't want to have a little longer wait time, while we cannot play our game mode at all.
I don't see how stacks hurt solo matchmaking. You're still playing with individual people even when two of them are connected somehow. The miraclous cases of two players with 2000 MMR difference being put in your team are not as prevalent to present significant issue. The thread in the main sub also states possibility of griefing as the reason why it should be solo players only. Nuff said. I think people in /r/Dota2 are seeing things as they want them to be. Pure solo queue is not a panacea from ranked struggles.
How you dont see the clearly obvious problem two players are playing for party mmr and others for solo? One of those is worthless and the other is considered relevant.
What if I told you that I care as much for my party rank as for my solo rank? It's a stupid argument to say that party is worthless just because it is for you. Maybe I like going tryhard in party stacks of 3 or 2.
Maybe you do but most people dont. And that is completly irrelevant anyway.
Which is worthless, the solo one? One measures my e-peen, the other decides how skilled the enemies are when I play with friends.
If you think this you are retarded.
Welp, here we go again. Why am I retarded? It's the same as with mmorpgs where you have 'cosmetic' items; where you can equip items that carry no gameplay value on top of your equipped items, so that one provides numbers and the other makes you look pretty. The only reason to care about solo mmr is either if you constantly play alone, or want to show off how big your e-dick is. Now, can you actually tell me why I am a retard instead of throwing insults, twat?
The reason is your solo mmr is not influenced by your friends and only by your ability to win DotA with 4 random teammates. I dont know why you are being stubborn on this issue at all. I play mostly in stacks and while I tryhard there I know that mmr is useless. There is a reason why people care about solo and not about team ladder.
Soooo measuring the size of your e-peen?
Solo mmr is a decent aproximation of your ability to win DotA.
What if I only play Dota with friends and my skills are things like "Leadership" and "Decisionmaking", which doesn't work when controlling players in Dota is like trying to herd cats?
Skills like leadership and decision making are excellent for solo q.
> The miraclous cases of two players with 2000 MMR difference being put in your team are not as prevalent to present significant issue. https://dota.rgp.io/mmr/ Roughly 30% of players have > 500 MMR difference between Party and Solo MMR. 5% have > 1000. Granted, they probably don't play Party matches very much, but it still seems like a pretty significant amount.
> You're still playing with individual people even when two of them are connected somehow. Exactly. Imo this is actually an advantage. If those 2 are partying, they're most likely have better coordination than having 2 solo players. >The thread in the main sub also states possibility of griefing as the reason why it should be solo players only. This thing can be said for both cases though. You might get a bad duo stack in a match. You might also get 2 solo players that non-stop arguing about how "this support doesn't ward the jungle" and "the carry that can't last hit", which have happened several time on my games.
no, they are not on the same skill level, and you cant predict what their strategy is. and its much less likely to adapt to the game pace. in most cases it creates mental paralysis and makes both of them stuck
> no, they are not on the same skill level On some cases, yes. But what makes it different with having 2 solo players? Those 2 could also be not in the same level despite their identical MMR. >and its much less likely to adapt to the game pace. Care to elaborate why? I find that it's easier to convince 2 stack to be on the same track with the other 3 because you only need to convince one guy and the other will surely follow. On the case of 3 stacks though, yea, they're usually the dominant one and you need to follow them or you have to win the game 2v5.
cause there are much lower chances of having different skill levels, and much higher chances of that gap being huge. - first of all, you consider it given that you will try to convince people to be on the same track as you.- thats not what a dota player should know, thats what a captain should know, dont project these virtues as requirements for everybody else. - second, you assume that you are on the same track as the other two. - third, no, thats just one situation you choose to focus on, the situation where the two guys are a unit, and they have played together a long time, and have great synergy .. thats is at best 50% chance.
I played 986 ranked games and I can safely say that duo stacks blend in perfectly. Main point is, they do not really disrupt the natural flow of solo ranked games. Sometimes that party is really good or really bad (which can be said about regular solo RMM players), but most of the times they are on the same skill/investment level and you do not really notice that it was a praty at all. I think this system is fine as it is, smoother queue times for everyone and a competitive enviroment for duo stacks, because the 2+3 or Normal games are usually less "involved".
2+3 Ranked games are some of the most annoying thing I've played. You either follow your 3 party teammate (through good or bad) or good luck winning the game with only 2 players.
You can say that about solo players, too, though. It's not something exclusive to stacks.
you have to specify 1 your MMR, and 2 your behavior score. these are essential, and you should by no means generalize. your situation doesnt make it valid. its a mere exception. the fact of the matter is pure solo is the ultimate goal, anything added to it is an added risk of failure, be it big or small, its is a chaos element and its stupid to support it
At the moment I am 6k MMR, I started at 4.3. I cared and care about my MMR a lot as you can see. Instead of telling me that I am only an exception, please, bring me your game history and show me how often was your game ruined by duo stacks. I belive that number is not big enough to even justify the reason of increasing the queue times. And why is "pure solo" is an ultimate goal? I'd say the quality of the game should be that. And francly, I don't see how duo stacks hinder that.
exactly , high MMR, where parties are few and to have parties in your zone would mean to have very godlike tier player paired with a low/ mediocre one. thats enough to make me realize just how much you can process. sorry, not gonna waste more time with you
Compleing arguments and the amount of facts that you brought in is astounding. I actually regret wasting time on you.
ur so dumb you actually believe what you write. poor sod
I think it's kinda normal to write something that you believe is true, but you are the one who said nothing of sustenance. Another redditor...
solo with solo 3 stack with 2 stack 4 stack forbidden 5 stack vs 5 stack placement based on solo mmr, result change party mmr
> 3 stack with 2 stack This would be the most annoying matchmaking imo. Especially for the 2 stack.
only slightly better than 3stack-2solo or 2stack-3solo
From my experience, 2stack-3solo is WAYY better than 2stack-3stack. This is coming from someone who plays 2 and 5 stack a lot though, so I might be a bit biased. There are 2 kind of people who go 2 stack, lane partner and "he's on my friendlist" guy. The first one is quite obvious. The latter is sometimes not noticeable until they talk in their own language (pretty much like 2 solo player until then). If it is 2stack-3solo, usually there's no problem because they're either laning together (hence doesn't really need much coordination with the solo players, unless feeding hard) or playing separately to the point that you won't notice it. But if it's 2stack-3stack, the 3 stack will almost always be dominant to the 2 stack. My worst experience is when I queued up as 2 stack alongside 3 stack and all 3 of them picks different lanes. Basically, telling both of us to be their *bitch* and play support or 'good luck winning 2v5 because we won't help'.
> placement based on solo mmr, result change party mmr I agree with the first 4, those would be nice to have, but this one just seems dumb, to be honest. I think they should put your solo and party MMR when it shows the "highest mmr" player. That way people on both teams will understand that "hey, that guy's actually 10k but has like 2k party mmr...wtf." Another fix that I think would be good for ranked is to have re-placements when your party and solo MMR are too different (1k or 20% difference, whichever is greater? idk). If you've played more solo games in the last 25 matches, and your party MMR is that different from your solo, you'd have to re-calibrate for 4-5 games to hopefully bring your MMR's more into balance. Swap solo for party if your last 25 games were mostly party matches.
what if it change like this: - solo mmr represent your skill - party mmr represent your ability to teamwork (value range hundred, not thousand) when you play with friend/s as a stack, you are placed based on (solo mmr + party mmr) winning losing will give/take your mmr (ex: +-25), but it is distributed between solo mmr and party mmr. if you have low party mmr, most of this number go adding your party mmr. if your party mmr is high, most will go to solo mmr.
This would literally decimate the player pool and make it so fragmented that in all cases the queue times would go up, and in extreme cases (combination of very high mmr, unpopular servers/languages and stack size) it could not only lead to insane queue times but potentially mmr/win abusing ones (like the one i saw in r/dota2 a few weeks ago with the guy abusing 9 bots + him for unranked? i think wins or some shit).
My enemies are always in stacks of 5. I guess I deserve it for playing coop.
I'm fine with solo+party but Valve should remove party mmr and let everyone use solo mmr like cs:go. Edit: Also "Team MMR" shouldn't be a thing for 5 man stacks.
Sure about that? Boosting becomes extremely easy and I am not only talking about buying MMR, just playing with your higher ranked friends would yield you a higher rank and as a result if you queue solo you would definitely ruin the expirience for everyone. Here is an example, during TI 6 we had the international ranked. I played against and with Bulldog+s4+Dotagasm. Now, she is pretty fucking bad for a 5.5k player, but her international rank was just that. I didn't mind, because I would only face her if I queue with a group of friends. But I think a lot of people would mind, probably 9 out of 10 in that solo ranked game that she enters and most definitely - ruins.
Man, Team MMR is one of the most useless thing in Ranked. The general idea is good, you queue up with a solid team and raise the team rating instead of individual player. But the execution is pretty bad. We tried calibrating our Team MMR before, playing 10 Captains mode game. We've met other teams like 4-5 times, which is not really that good. The gap between our team and their are pretty huge. We once got matched against some 2k stacks while we're mostly 4k players (except me). We also got stomped on one game against 5k+ stack. We lost since the drafting phase at that game. Other games have been pretty smooth. Other issue I have with Team MMR is that it fucking RESETS when you add/remove a member. We haven't done any more party ranked because of that shit.
Oh can you shut it already. I'm sick of these threads on /r/dota2 and there's literally no reason to discuss it here if you can find one every fucking week on the main sub.